Tale of Two Senators
Which of these two incidents involving US senators is the more serious?
Senator A, while driving a young woman to a boat-landing in the middle of the night, drove off the road and into a large pond. The senator managed to save himself, but was unable to extricate his passenger from the the partially-submerged car. Without bothering to call police or other rescue service, he went back to his hotel room, called his lawyer, and went to bed. In the morning the car and drowned passenger were found. The senator plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and had his license suspended for 30 days. In a TV broadcast, he described his conduct as "inexcusable."
Senator B was arrested for "playing footsie" and making homosexual gestures to an undercover policeman in an airport men's room. He plead guilty to a charge of "disorderly conduct," paid a fine, and later publicly denied he was guilty of anything.
By now most readers would have recognized that A was Edward M Kennedy (D, MA) and B was Larry Craig (R, ID).
The most reprehensible aspect of the Kennedy case was his failure to summon police immediately. Even though he could not save the young lady himself, professional divers and paramedics might have saved her life. Then, why did he not call police? Possibly he was afraid they would administer a field sobriety-test, and he would would fail it. Then, if the victim died anyway, Kennedy could have been convicted of vehicular manslaughter, a felony. He would have lost his Senate seat, his law license, and even faced prison time. The risk was simply too great.
Despite all this, Democratic Senate leaders did not pressure Kennedy to resign his seat, and he was re-elected the next year (1970) and ever since.
In comparison, the Craig case pales into insignificance. Nobody got hurt, or even lost money. The "disorderly conduct" did not even create a public disturbance. At worst, his conduct was annoying and offensive, even obnoxious. Even if he did exactly what the arresting officer alleged, he could have challenged the law under which he was charged as
overly- broad (1) and enforced in a discriminatory way. Craig could have enlisted the ACLU and the entire "gay community" behind his defense if he had appealed his case on constitutional grounds.
The fact that he plead guilty, then denied any guilt, reduced his credibilty to zero. But why did the Republican leadership of the Senate pressure him into resigning his seat?
You might think that the Republicans, unlike Democrats, consider the violation of any law grounds for removal from Congress, but they did not hound Senator Robert Kasten (R, WI) out of the Senate when he was caught driving drunk in Washington. Unlike Craig, Kasten threatened the safety of other DC residents who happened to be on the streets that night. (2)
No, the reason that Larry Craig was driven out of the Senate by his colleagues is that the Republican Party considers homosexuality so loathsome that it cannot be tolerated. That is also the reason that Craig did not fight this case in court or challenge the validity of the law under which he was charged. In the cosmic struggle over the legal status of homosexual activity in this country, a Republican senator could not be on the "wrong side."
Some have condemned Craig as a hypocrite, since he voted to ban same-sex marriage in this country. But this is a bad rap------whatever the Idaho senator did in that toilet stall in the Minneapolis airport men's room, he most certainly did not propose marriage!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Courts have ruled that if a law does not clearly delineate what conduct is prohibited, or if it prohibits constitutionally-protected conduct (such as symbolic speech), the law is unconstitutional. Unequal enforcement of a valid law can also be challenged under the "equal-protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(2)Kasten was arrested after driving the wrong way on a one-way street and going through a stop-light. He failed a field-sobriety test, but plead guilty to a reduced charge of "reckless driving."
Senator A, while driving a young woman to a boat-landing in the middle of the night, drove off the road and into a large pond. The senator managed to save himself, but was unable to extricate his passenger from the the partially-submerged car. Without bothering to call police or other rescue service, he went back to his hotel room, called his lawyer, and went to bed. In the morning the car and drowned passenger were found. The senator plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and had his license suspended for 30 days. In a TV broadcast, he described his conduct as "inexcusable."
Senator B was arrested for "playing footsie" and making homosexual gestures to an undercover policeman in an airport men's room. He plead guilty to a charge of "disorderly conduct," paid a fine, and later publicly denied he was guilty of anything.
By now most readers would have recognized that A was Edward M Kennedy (D, MA) and B was Larry Craig (R, ID).
The most reprehensible aspect of the Kennedy case was his failure to summon police immediately. Even though he could not save the young lady himself, professional divers and paramedics might have saved her life. Then, why did he not call police? Possibly he was afraid they would administer a field sobriety-test, and he would would fail it. Then, if the victim died anyway, Kennedy could have been convicted of vehicular manslaughter, a felony. He would have lost his Senate seat, his law license, and even faced prison time. The risk was simply too great.
Despite all this, Democratic Senate leaders did not pressure Kennedy to resign his seat, and he was re-elected the next year (1970) and ever since.
In comparison, the Craig case pales into insignificance. Nobody got hurt, or even lost money. The "disorderly conduct" did not even create a public disturbance. At worst, his conduct was annoying and offensive, even obnoxious. Even if he did exactly what the arresting officer alleged, he could have challenged the law under which he was charged as
overly- broad (1) and enforced in a discriminatory way. Craig could have enlisted the ACLU and the entire "gay community" behind his defense if he had appealed his case on constitutional grounds.
The fact that he plead guilty, then denied any guilt, reduced his credibilty to zero. But why did the Republican leadership of the Senate pressure him into resigning his seat?
You might think that the Republicans, unlike Democrats, consider the violation of any law grounds for removal from Congress, but they did not hound Senator Robert Kasten (R, WI) out of the Senate when he was caught driving drunk in Washington. Unlike Craig, Kasten threatened the safety of other DC residents who happened to be on the streets that night. (2)
No, the reason that Larry Craig was driven out of the Senate by his colleagues is that the Republican Party considers homosexuality so loathsome that it cannot be tolerated. That is also the reason that Craig did not fight this case in court or challenge the validity of the law under which he was charged. In the cosmic struggle over the legal status of homosexual activity in this country, a Republican senator could not be on the "wrong side."
Some have condemned Craig as a hypocrite, since he voted to ban same-sex marriage in this country. But this is a bad rap------whatever the Idaho senator did in that toilet stall in the Minneapolis airport men's room, he most certainly did not propose marriage!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Courts have ruled that if a law does not clearly delineate what conduct is prohibited, or if it prohibits constitutionally-protected conduct (such as symbolic speech), the law is unconstitutional. Unequal enforcement of a valid law can also be challenged under the "equal-protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(2)Kasten was arrested after driving the wrong way on a one-way street and going through a stop-light. He failed a field-sobriety test, but plead guilty to a reduced charge of "reckless driving."
Labels: Craig, homosexual, Kennedy
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 10:37 AM
3 comments
